You're a big fan of command propt, aren't you?
I couldn't help noticing that the author give no opportunity for anyone to refute his assertions, much like a pastor in a pulpit. I, on the other hand, provide a comment section on my own website, leaving any theist free to refute me at will, and I never censor comments.
Does that author feel his beliefs can't stand up to discussion or debate?
Most definitely. Why would he give someone a chance to disprove these claims.
What an odd site. It is painful to think what kind of alleged "thought process" could go into publishing a rant like this.
Consider from the second entry:
For example: Consider any of the founders, fathers, giants or leaders of atheism of old to the present. None of their writings are worth reading. Nothing they say is worth listening to. They are not worthy role models. None of them have any true honor, nobility or righteousness about themselves.
But consider true Christianity: It has such noble patriarchs as Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - such righteous men as Joseph, Moses, Gideon, Barak, Sampson, Jephthah, David, Solomon, Daniel, the Prophets, the 12 Apostles (excluding judas and including Paul) and many others - men, women and children of whom the world was and is not worthy.
None of the atheists are "worth" listening to? Abraham, Moses, and Sampson were beyond reproach? SAMPSON??????
My brain is burning!
I definitely hate when a theist come saying "i used to be an atheist, but i found god/jesus/allah" , when i hear that, i know what is coming next, a lot of bullshit
Some stupid quotes from it:
"...you cant for certain say god exists, just as I cannot prove he doesn't. Until one of us can, you must accept that other people have different ideas to yours, and that either one of use could be right or wrong."
This is a very terrible mistake you have inbedded in you mind. I and everyone else including yourself can say for certain that God exists. Every house has its builder. Every invention has its designer. You cannot have any one of these without their authors. No house or invention brought itself into being.
Now this one is big time major bullshit => BOAST OF A 13 YEAR OLD ATHEIST
Numerous atheists have invited or challenged me to debate with them about the existence of God. I always turn down such invitations. Such a debate is like them denying their own existence and me debating with them about their true existence.
Your inability to believe I was once an atheist demonstrates the utter hoplessness of atheism. While blinded by atheism, atheists see it *IMPOSSIBLE* to turn from atheism to God. It is unthinkable to them. They cannot imagine such happening. It is a greater impossibility than imagining themselves creating the world. It is unthinkable. So a person who is an atheist demonstrates the utter inability of atheism to turn to God (John 6:44, 65).
..The only thing they will be able to do in effort to effectually rebutt this challenge is to babble unintelligently.
The challenge has to do with the issue of human death. The sentence of death (which comes from God as a result of mankind having committed high treason against God's kingdom in the first man Adam) is one that every person of mankind cannot escape as long as mankind exists. (The actual experience of death is one that few humans will escape). Every atheist BELIEVE and even KNOW that every person of mankind, must die. However, even though they believe and know this fact, not one of them can supply SCIENTIFIC PROOF to that effect. Their belief is not based on any type of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
I'm done with it, i am gonna vomit if i keep reading that
(The actual experience of death is one that few humans will escape).
Really? A few will escape? How fascinating, tell me more...
The Rapture, of course, and then there's Enoch, "who walked with god and was not" --
LOL...me, me, me let it be me...LOL
@B.A. - pretending for a moment that god exists and the Bible is true, here's a thought you might want to share with your theists - the "original sin" explanation behind the cause of death is the biggest hoax god ever perpetrated!
First, what kind of loving god would sentence all Humankind to death for the sins of two, and why do all animals die, as only Humans disobeyed the commandment?
Secondly, what kind of low-tech god stores the knowledge of good and evil and the secret to eternal life in the fruit of trees?!
Thirdly, if god is truly omniscient, he foresaw the fruit would be eaten long before it was, so why go through the charade?
And lastly, and most importantly, if god had any intention of Mankind not dying - assuming they hadn't eaten of the fruit - why would he say, regarding the Tree of Life (Gen, 3:22): '"....Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of Life, and live forever...." He never finishes that sentence, but in the next verse, he throws them out of the garden, so it's not difficult to see where he was going with that. What IS difficult to see, is that he had no intention for Humans to live forever, or he wouldn't have been so relieved to see the tree of Life untouched.
Spread some of that on your theists --
All valid points Arch. Some knowledge for you if you are unaware of it.
Number 1: Any theist worth their salt in understanding Genesis will tell you that it is not a literal book of literature and it is redacted and edited by a series of unknown authors at different points in the history of the book existing. None of it is literal history.
Number 2: Redactions can be seen in the comparison of Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. It both chapters, the world is being created; however, the order of creation is different and so it the way in which it takes place. For example, in chapter one, God creates man and women together - at the same time - through spoken word. There is no "fashioning them together like a potter does with clay, and there is no hierarchy in that initial creation - suggesting through literary interpretation the equality of the sexes. However, the moment we jump to chapter 2, the very nature of God changes and there we find him fashioning man and then women which does suggest a hierarchy of importance. Doing so suggests that, whoever put Genesis together in its final form had a socio-political agenda that was entirely sexist. Now, we could say that the author was just drawing a biological comparison that women are typically weaker than men in physical strength - particularly upper body strength, but based on the evidence of sociological and political history, that is doubtful. There is an obvious agenda.
Thus, the very verse you point out is further evidence that Genesis is nothing more than a redacted, edited, patch-work book of stories where humanity is trying to figure out it's place in the universe - in the world in which he exists, and the consciousness and awareness of self he has been given biologically.
Number 3: When I look at Genesis, I do not see literal history. I see an epic tale of humanity trying to figure out it's place in a chaotic, "fallen" world, and since man craves order and stability to ensure his survival and prosperity, it is no wonder we have this rendering. Essentially, this is ancient man's attempt to figure this strange thing called existence out. Is there divinity in it - in discovering the "self" (what makes us human)? Yes, thus the divine inspiration. Can we say that we can possibly know the mind of God? No, no one really does, but people like to think they do and what's worse is that Humanity hates change, because change brings chaos. This is why when challenged and confronted, the theists that you are against always bring up Biblical Authority - which is really just a fancy expression to describe tradition, and tradition (in my opinion) is always meant to be broken at some point.
I guess my point in all of this is to say: "You are correct in your challenges, but to get a theist admit it - especially a staunch arguer for tradition and fundamentalist? It almost impossible. Their intellect simply cannot handle it. This is one of the reasons why I cannot admittedly be loyal to them because what they often propose and espouse is so characteristically flawed and that flaw show up not only in their arguments but also in their character of behavior and actions. I find such adherence to a book limiting, and prefer experience over it all. In my mind the book is not hard law, it really a set of guidelines to be taken with a grain of salt - understood contextually, but not literally since time has past and we now know more about human existence than anything. In this, I am known (of which I am fond of) a heretic.
@Barry - That is really well explained and I completely agree with number 3.
Redaction - I just looked it up - Its important to understand that when thinking about how the bibles were constructed isnt it ...
There is also this:
Redactional fatigue is an important related concept: when making changes to a large text, a redactor may occasionally overlook a piece of text that conflicts with the redactional goals. Since many important ancient texts are likely to have been redacted at least once, such snippets open a window into an earlier form of the text. The nature of the conflict between the bulk of a redacted text and the contradictory windows can suggest what the goals of the redactor might have been."